Unionists question Sinn Féin's commitment to truth and genuine reconciliation

ANALYSIS:SINN FÉIN chairman Declan Kearney used the S-word recently – the "hardest word" for republicans, according to DUP MP Jeffrey Donaldson.

“Regardless of the stance of others, we should recognise the healing influence of being able to say sorry for the effects of all actions caused during the armed struggle,” Kearney wrote in the Sinn Féin publication, An Phoblacht.

That was in March and since then his comments have triggered considerable reaction in Northern Ireland. There will be quite a focus at this weekend’s annual Sinn Féin Ardfheis, which opens tonight in Killarney, on the forthcoming fiscal treaty referendum. But this “outreach to unionism” that Kearney is leading will also feature prominently.

But what has stuck in the craw of several unionists is that the “sorry” was not for the IRA “war”, but for the hurt caused by the conflict. Still, despite the hostility and disparagement from some quarters, Kearney has held his ground, ever so slowly gaining a degree of traction, arguing directly over recent weeks with the likes of a suspicious Donaldson and a cautious Ulster Unionist Party leader Mike Nesbitt.

Indeed, there are people of unionist persuasion including Irish Times columnist David Adams who see some merit in what is happening and are prepared to give the initiative a fair wind. What he and republicans are about, says Kearney, is “having uncomfortable conversations” about the need for reconciliation with unionists and others. He mentions how our own Civil War caused “90 years of seismic hurt and division”.

What must not happen, he adds, is that we create a “trans-generational cycle where youngsters grow up today still disputing and arguing over the nature of the conflict that their predecessors came through”. But a big problem is distrust and contested truth, as Kearney well realises.

He believes the IRA campaign was justified, although he expresses that carefully. He refers to an “outworking of injustices and political and economic conditions which created circumstances where many in our society and many within the nationalist/republican community found that armed struggle was a last resort – but a last resort which came about and was not able to be set aside as a result of there being any viable political alternative,” he says.

“The war has happened and it caused untold hurt across our society, and it would have been better if it hadn’t had to be that way, but the political reality is that it did, and none of us can disown or distance ourselves from that problem.” That sort of language also sticks in the gut of most unionists and many nationalists.

The problem for a large body of unionists is that they are dubious about a project where rather than an apology there is still justification for the “war”. Many also suspect that rather than being a genuine attempt at reconciliation it is a means of softening up unionists so that they can be trundled meekly into a united Ireland.

Senior unionists such as Donaldson and Nesbitt have also queried Sinn Féin’s commitment to truth and reconciliation when Gerry Adams says he was never in the IRA and Martin McGuinness says he left in 1974.

“Gerry and Martin both addressed those questions,” says Kearney. “It is for others to judge whether they want to accept or believe the answers . . . provided.”

Kearney adds that while there are many unresolved matters to be addressed, republicans are genuine about this initiative, and courteous debate won’t hurt anybody. The Sinn Féin proposal is not “to turn unionists into republicans”, he assures.

He argues also that there are no contradictions in seeking to achieve reconciliation with unionists while wanting to put them in a united Ireland. His line is that moves to reconciliation should happen now.

There are already a number of frameworks, such as provided by the Eames-Bradley consultative group on the past, on how to deal with the doleful legacy of the Troubles. Kearney repeats that Sinn Féin is genuine and with good will progress can be achieved. It will be interesting to see whether anything will be heard at the ardfheis that would make clear to unionists the sincerity of that attempt to heal divisions.

Gerry Moriarty is Northern Editor